Both claim to cut your Claude bill. They solve different problems. Here's how to pick.
Run the free audit at aiusage.ai →| Dimension | AIUsage | Tarmac |
|---|---|---|
| Pitch | Stop overpaying for Claude — 70-90% on same prompts | Pre-flight cost estimation for Claude Code |
| Savings claim | 70-90% (6 verified cases: 76-84%) | N/A — estimates, doesn't cut |
| Workload coverage | Any Claude API workload — support, agents, code review, content, CRM codegen | Claude Code only |
| Setup | One-line code change (swap API endpoint) | Claude Code hook |
| Free audit | Yes — paste bill, see number, no signup | Typically no |
| Mechanism disclosure | Private — "try it, the number is testable" | Regression model + conformal prediction — estimates task cost before running |
| Scope | Broad (workload-agnostic) | pre-flight estimation, not reduction |
If your Claude usage is claude code only and you're comfortable with claude code hook, Tarmac is purpose-built for that shape. 13 GitHub stars if that matters to you.
If your Claude spend spans multiple workload types (support automation, agent loops, code review, content drafting, daily coding) or you want to audit your bill before you commit to any cost-reduction tool, AIUsage gives you the number first. No CLI install, no platform dependency, no code rewrite.
Tarmac tells you what a prompt will cost before you run it. AIUsage audits your historical spend and reduces it going forward. Complementary, not competitive.
Across six audited workloads, AIUsage's measured delta was 76-84% on the same prompts, blind A/B tested: